Often you can debate a subject like abortion until you’re blue in the face only to find yourself back at your original starting point. But if you push an ideology back far enough, you will eventually uncover its original source. Secular humanism is the philosophical foundation that erected the litany of the social misconceptions we’ve previously discussed. Multiculturalism, moral relativism, materialism, tolerance, modern feminism, and the liberation movement are all offspring of this well-organized worldview. While anyone can become an atheist at a moments notice, secular humanism is the formalization - or put another way - the philosophical foundation of the atheistic worldview. Humanism’s roots extend back to early Greek philosophers, the most infamous of which was Thales of Miletus, who coined the phrase “Know thyself.” As the medieval period moved into the Renaissance around the fourteenth century, academics revived the study of Latin and Greek and subsequently looked to the classic works of antiquity as a source of knowledge. As disenchantment with the church grew, so did humanistic philosophy, which elevated man rather than God as the source of all knowledge. But it was the work of Jean-Jacques Rousseau, widely read in our universities, that popularized the idea that man is autonomous and must be stripped of all social and cultural institutions to arrive at man’s original “state of nature.” Subsequently, “Each citizen would then be completely independent of all his fellow men, and absolutely dependent on the state.” His ideas codified humanistic philosophy and were later politicized in the European Enlightenment.Although humanism had already made inroads into American thought, it wasn’t until 1929 when Charles Potter founded the First Humanist Society of New York and later published Humanism: a New Religion, that the philosophy began to resemble a movement. The Humanist Manifesto published in 1933 would serve as its cornerstone. Among those who would go on to sign the document was John Dewey, arguably the most influential educator in America during the twentieth century. In his well-read book A Common Faith, Dewey assures us that religion is nothing more than a social construct designed by man as a means of adjusting to his struggles. Therefore education must be stripped of these ancient ideas and replaced with a purely secular curriculum.Under his leadership, character building and virtue would be replaced by evolutionary science and free thinking ideology, both culminating in secular humanism, the ideological foundation for our education system. Its progression has brought us to where we are today where everything taught and read in our public schools must be processed through the modern-day equivalent of the fifteenth-century Inquisition courts now known as education boards. Historians rail against the book burnings of the Middle Ages while liberals complain of censorship when pornography is at stake, but neither has a problem eradicating literature that conflicts with their materialist worldview, which is now embedded in our public schools.And while Dewey, Potter, and others rightly called it a new religion in an effort to avoid government restrictions, during the later half of the twentieth century, advocates preferred the designation “scientific humanism.” Nevertheless, in a 1961 case before the Supreme Court, Torcaso v. Watkins, Justice Hugo Black noted, “Among the religions of this country which do not teach what would generally be considered a belief in the existence of God are Buddhism, Taoism, Ethical Culture, Secular Humanism, and others.” While courts have referred to secular humanism as a religion in the past, the Supreme Court has never taken up the issue directly.So the question still remains, Is secular humanism a religion? Religion by definition must have several components: an explanation for the origin of life, a statement of meaning, a plan of redemption, and its predictions about the afterlife. The Humanist Manifesto 2000 was written and published by the editor of Free Inquiry, Paul Kurtz, in 1999.1 It lays out the basic framework of the humanist’s belief. Let’s put it to the test.On creation, the Manifesto claims, “The scientific theory of evolution, however, provides a more parsimonious account of human origins and is based upon evidence drawn from a wide range of sciences.” Kurtz forgets to mention that the sciences have failed to provide a credible account for the origin of life to the point that they have all but abandoned its pursuit. The Miller-Ury experiment of the 1950s was the closest attempt to anything that resembles a scientific account of life’s origins, but has since been vastly discredited even though it’s still taught in many textbooks. The closest thing today that resembles a theory for the origins of life is Panspermia, the theory that life was transferred here by an alien force. I love Star Trek too, but I’d hardly call it a “parsimonious account of human origins.”On meaning, the Manifesto claims, “Human life has meaning because we create and develop our future.” While pursuing our future may bring meaning, that theme is available through any and all religions. And while the biblical view limits that pursuit by that which is sinful, it’s impossible to argue that things such as alcohol abuse, lying, or stealing could in any way hinder a meaningful life. He goes on, “Happiness and the creative realization of human needs and desires, individually and in shared enjoyment, are continuous themes of humanism. We strive for the good life here and now. The goal is to pursue life’s enrichment….” While the document is dotted with words like meaning, happiness, and dignity, the best it has to offer for that meaning is the pursuit of enjoyment and the realization of talent. Contrast that “meaning” with the biblical view of a life uniquely molded by the loving Creator of the universe, embedded with eternal purpose, a life that will ultimately rest in His everlasting presence. On redemption, the Manifesto claims, “Reason and intelligence are the most effective instruments that humankind possesses. There is no substitute: Neither faith nor passion suffices in itself. The controlled use of the scientific methods, which has transformed the natural and social sciences since the Renaissance, must be extended further in the solution of human problems.” While I’m sure the great humanist icon Jean-Jacques Rousseau would agree with Kurtz’s assessment, his American education forgot to mention a few facts about his hero—primarily that Rousseau had five illegitimate children which he abandoned. That, Pol Pot, the Cambodian leader who exterminated a quarter of the country’s population, was educated in Paris were Rousseau is worshiped. That the scientific community in the early twentieth century under the evolutionary paradigm concluded that blacks were less evolved than whites. That Karl Marx, who would eagerly embrace all of Kurtz’s advice, reasoned that economic determinism and the destruction of capitalism would eventually lead to man’s ultimate triumph. My point is that unrestrained reason can lead to the most grotesque conclusions, as history well records. And although Christianity does not reject reason, it tempers it with God’s revelation.On the afterlife, the Manifesto claims, “There is no credible evidence that life survives the death of the body.” Yet scientific research into near-death-experience (NDE) has been going on since the ’70s with the work of Dr. Raymond Moody Jr. Investigations have now documented thousands of cases of out-of-body experiences. One of the leading researchers, Dr. Atwater, records the events of over 3,000 adults and 277 children who have had NDEs. Dr. Pim van Lommel conducted the most impressive clinical study, which covered 12 hospitals and 300 people. Dr. Atwater’s conclusions are startling, “Every single skeptical theory or argument put forward to explain NDEs has been disproved and discredited by clinical research.”2 Lommel’s findings were published in the highly respected international journal The Lancet, in which he concludes, “Our results show that medical factors alone cannot account for the occurrences of NDE.”3 Countless cases reveal information about events the subjects could not have otherwise known while they were lying in a hospital bed. Legally blind subjects reported accounts they could not otherwise have known had they not been able to “see” during the event. Although I hardly need this kind of evidence to apprehend the existence of the transcendent, Kurtz’s “no credible evidence” statement clearly has no credible evidence.On religion, the Manifesto claims, “Promises of immortal salvation or fear of eternal damnation are both illusory and harmful.” Again he notes, “Salvationism, based on mere affirmation, still appears harmful….” But is the belief in God really harmful as so many humanists claim? Guenter Lewy, a confirmed humanist, thought so and set out to write a book about it. When he was done with his research, having done a complete turnaround, he published Why America Needs Religion. He shows conclusively how Christianity in particular leads to lower levels of a host of social pathologies ranging from depression to crime to teen pregnancy. Dr. Harold G. Koenig in The Healing Power of Faith: Science Explores Medicine’s Last Great Frontier discusses the medical research into the relationship between religion, mental health, and physical health. He explains, “In summary, a religion-medical connection is not new and unnatural. Many patients are religious and use it to cope with illness. Religion is related to better mental health, social support, and health behaviors. Better mental health, in turn, and better social support are related to better physical health.”4 The National Institutes of Healthcare Research has published a host of studies, scientific studies I might add, that further collaborate the ever increasing link between religion and improved mental health. So how could the “we only believe in science” humanist establishment overlook such conclusive findings? While humanists deplore religion in all its forms, they fail to see that their worldview contains all the markings of a well-oiled religious enterprise. And despite their call for the respect of all cultures, they propose the elimination of religion, which, unbeknown to them, is a sacred part of every culture.On morality and ethics, the Manifesto claims, “We affirm moral values derive their source from human experience. Ethics is autonomous and situational, needing no theological and ideological sanction. Ethics stems from human’s needs and interest.” Try to follow this logic: you have a need or some self-interest and then your ethics stem from that. While ethics has always been understood in the context of regulating behavior, the humanist’s idea of ethics works in reverse. You have an interest and then you formulate ethics around it. But this can only work to justify behavior rather than to regulate it. That’s not ethics, that’s hedonism.If thoughts of Planet of the Apes haven’t crossed your mind yet, then listen to their ultimate goal for civilization. Humanists propose a world government where “disproportions in wealth, income, and economic growth should be reduced on a worldwide basis.” And how will they achieve such equality? Kurtz says, “We need to work out some equitable form of taxation on a worldwide basis to help make this a reality.” Of course, a world welfare program; it’s worked so well in America, why not? But in all fairness to Kurtz, he does have an ingenious way to pay for that tax—eliminate all military spending. This world government will be run democratically, of course, based on population, which means we’ll all have to brush up on our Chinese.Humanists have a laundry list of rights to ensure our dignity that includes suicide, abortion, euthanasia, gay rights, and even the right to sex education at an early age. Transgender rights are in, religious rights are out. While the relationship between religious faith and high culture eludes the humanist, our inherent American culture is being denigrated on this diet of secularism. And all of us who love this great country have reason to be concerned. Tim LaHaye and David Noebel, authors of Mind Siege, do an outstanding job delineating the insurmountable differences and highlighting the incompatibilities between the secular and biblical worldviews. Yet despite its inroad, humanism fails to provide a logically cohesive understanding of the world or of human nature. It further fails to afford the dignity and human value only Christianity can provide. Reader, the implications of secular humanism are massive and unbeknownst to most parents, it is being force fed to our children on a daily basis. The implications are wide ranging. As Noebel in Understanding the Times explains, “The line separating theology and philosophy is fragile; the line separating theology, philosophy, ethics, law, and politics is more so. In fact, there is no ultimate line, only a difference in emphasis and perspective.” He continues, “At the bottom it is of little importance whether atheism of the deification of man was Humanism’s first theological presupposition; the crux of their theology remains anti-God. This is at the heart and soul of Secular Humanism: man setting himself in place of God. Unfortunately, for the Humanist, this theology often strips him of all sense of purpose.”Marlin Maddoux, author of Public Education Against America, chronicles the success of secular humanism and its inroads into the public school system. “Visit almost any classroom in most any public school in America. Things will look normal, with lively kids and stressed-out teachers. But the scene is deceiving. Much more is happening in the classroom than the teacher or parent would like to believe. In all honesty, the teacher, in most cases, is simply following the mandated curricula and teaching methodology that he or she has been trained to use…Conflict is deliberately set up in the child’s mind by creating logical contradictions between the Christian beliefs he or she brings to the school and the beliefs and values mandated by the State….Through the use of well crafted psychological attacks scripted for the teacher by the educationalists, the child is being coerced into adopting predetermined secular humanist values and beliefs.” It won't be long before the unsuspecting parents who raised their children with traditional values begins to wonder what is happening to their son or daughter when they abandon those values.I’ll leave you with the words of LaHaye and Noebel: “The tenants of humanism described in the three Humanist Manifestos are not the weird ideas of a few obscure individuals unworthy of our consideration. They are the religious beliefs of some of the most influential people in America. Educators lead the list, many of whom head the universities and college departments that mold the thinking of our children. Since the publication in 1933, The Humanist Manifesto has been widely recognized as the bible of Secular Humanists. Its dogma has consistently been taught to our youth, and its supporters have used their influence to implement its objectives and ideals. But when it comes to choosing a Bible, do yourself a favor and forget the manifestos. The only salvation they offer is from life itself.”